From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Jenny Zhang <jenny(at)osdl(dot)org> |
Cc: | perf-pgsql <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matt Clark <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution |
Date: | 2003-09-24 09:14:19 |
Message-ID: | 4sj2nvcla6v5v9e3cr96kopjtda7k6mq8v@email.aon.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:35:35 -0700, Jenny Zhang <jenny(at)osdl(dot)org>
wrote:
>I posted more results as you requested:
Unfortunately they only confirm what I suspected earlier:
>> 2) -> Index Scan using i_ps_suppkey on partsupp
>> (cost=0.00..323.16 rows=80 width=34)
>> (actual time=0.16..2.98 rows=80 loops=380)
>> ctr=108.44
>> the planner does not
>> account for additional index scans hitting pages in the cache that
>> have been brought in by preceding scans. This is a known problem
PF1 = estimated number of page fetches for one loop ~ 320
L = estimated number of loops ~ 400
P = number of pages in relation ~ 21000
Cutting down the number of heap page fetches if PF1 * L > P and P <
effective_cache_size seems like an obvious improvement, but I was not
able to figure out where to make this change. Maybe it belongs into
costsize.c near
run_cost += outer_path_rows *
(inner_path->total_cost - inner_path->startup_cost) *
joininfactor;
in cost_nestloop() or it should be pushed into the index cost
estimation functions. Hackers?
For now you have to keep lying about effective_cache_size to make the
planner overestimate merge joins to compensate for the planner's
overestimation of nested loops. Sorry for having no better answer.
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2003-09-24 11:18:32 | Re: ecpg build on AIX 4.2.1 |
Previous Message | Hornyak Laszlo | 2003-09-24 08:00:12 | Re: postgres 6.2 vacuum |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rigmor Ukuhe | 2003-09-24 10:09:37 | Index problem |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-24 06:06:02 | Re: LIKE query running slow |